Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't accept all of the reasoning there from the Minister, but he also neglected to indicate that 24.7 here would allow the Minister to create zones on the Minister's own initiative. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, but we would have to consult with Indigenous governments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Great, so the Minister can do this as well. Can I just get an explanation from the department of what the purpose of subclause (13) in this section is? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of subsection (13) in the reprint is a for-greater-certainty clause. It is just to clarify the interpretation of this, and that any zone creates an option doesn't change the normal rules and their availability. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I read this, (13) says that a person may apply for an instrument in accordance with the regulations establishing a zone or in the general regulations established under this act. There are going to be maybe two sets of rules, terms, or conditions that are established that could apply to somebody getting an instrument in a zone. For a prospecting licence, a mining claim, a lease, there could be two sets of rules that could apply to those instruments. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is incorrect to suggest that there are two sets of rules. There is only one underlying set of rules for the Mineral Resources Act, and that is for getting and maintaining mineral interests. That lays the groundwork. The incentives that would be put in place if a zone is established would modify some of the requirements in a specified area where that zone is in place.
If I can use a practical example, if you had a zone, a proponent could apply for whatever instrument we are giving out under that zone. Alternatively, that proponent could also say, "Well, I'm just going to stake a regular mineral claim and follow the regular act." That would be an example of where the overall MRA regulations for mineral tenure would apply versus one that a proponent would select to follow the zone rules. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that the witness proved my point. There could be two sets of terms and conditions that relate to claims: one for the zone and one of general application, which I think is going to create confusion -- it is creating confusion in my own mind, obviously -- about having two sets of rules for anyone applying for an instrument.
Can someone from the department clarify whether anybody has actually requested this ability to have what I interpret as two sets of rules for someone securing an instrument? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This shouldn't be new. We have zones currently in the Northwest Territories, and they are referred to under the sections in the mining regulations, called prospecting permits. We are simply building on that tool.
Right now, under our mining regulations, we have two zones: one north of the 68th parallel and one south of the 68th parallel. That means that the entire Northwest Territories is divided into two zones. Somebody can apply for the instrument of a prospecting permit, or somebody can apply for a mineral claim, go out, and stake one. That would be two sets of rules that we currently have where people can apply for two different sets of instruments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I continue to respectfully disagree. I think that this is going to create confusion that there are two sets of rules that can apply within one zone.
I want to move on, Mr. Chair, to one other issue with regard to zones, and I neglected to raise it earlier. It is what I call the race to the bottom, where we could have Indigenous governments competing with each other to try to attract investment by having lower and lower standards. What is the department going to do to prevent that from happening? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I myself have a whole lot of confidence in our partners and Indigenous governments to effectively represent their interests. It seems that certain Members may not share that confidence.
Zones cannot override requirements under any other legislation. The favourable terms are limited to how mineral interests are acquired and maintained. They cannot cover things like water or environmental rules, which are rightly enshrined in other legislations. We plan to set out the baseline of what kind of incentives are allowed within a zone in regulations in partnership with Indigenous governments and stakeholders. We don't believe that this is all that different than regimes in places like Manitoba, Ontario, and the Yukon. Members can rest assured that there are examples in place.
Furthermore, we believe that the checks and balances offered by the Executive Council engagement with Indigenous governments is more than enough to prevent this kind of issue. We should also note the reality that exploration is driven by geology and not by incentives. Incentives are simply a tool to enhance how and where that happens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to raise a point of order. The Minister is impugning motives on my part, saying that I don't have confidence in Indigenous governments. I have never said that in this House, and I respectfully would request that he withdraw those remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. One moment. I will give the Minister a chance to respond to the point of order. Minister Schumann.
I will repeat exactly what I said, Mr. Chair. I said, "I myself have a whole lot of confidence in our partners and Indigenous governments to effectively represent their interests. It seems certain Members may not share that confidence." That's what I said, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Schumann. One moment.
Thank you, committee. I will rule that there is no point of order, because the Minister used the term "may," and he did not name particular Members, although I can understand the Member's concern. Language perhaps has the potential to cause disorder.
Like I have stated a number of times over this past week, if we can all remain civil and all respect each other's opinions, as there are many differing opinions in this Assembly, we can get through the next few days without any more animosity bubbling to the top. I think that we would all appreciate that, and it would make for a much more productive week for everyone.
To clause 24 as amended. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could the witnesses explain how this provision of the act applies to prospecting permits? I hope I've got that right, but I'll just express the concern. The correspondence committee heard from industry that this was broadly supportive of the zones because they have been told, and they see it as an extension of prospecting permits which are under the old mining regulations. Could we have an explanation of how zones apply to that? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The prospecting permit the way it is right now is an example of an instrument that is issued in a zone. We will have to define what the new instrument is going to be in the new MRA under zones. It could be the continuation of prospecting permits as they stand now, or a modification, or something completely new. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. Which part of the subclauses of clause 24 address the prospecting permit instrument? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Within section 24, section 24 is the enabling authority, the new enabling authority for prospecting permits. You will see, in 113(5), there is a continuation provision. The current regulations that are housed within the mining regulations when this comes into force, will move over. They will be, by all means, open for review and improvements, but they live on under the MRA under that provision as is like the rest of the mining regulations. Therefore, prospecting permits in their current form are transitioned with this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. Would it be fair to characterize this zone section as having nothing to do with prospecting permits in its current form because they are addressed through a transitional provision? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is actually extremely related because section 24 of the zone is the enabling authority for prospecting permits. Without section 24, we cannot move over the prospecting permits. That's because, as was previously said, prospecting permits is based on zones, and right now, that divide is north and south of 68. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Could I just get the section of the transitional provision again, covering the prospecting permits? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's 113(5). Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
I see that now. Is the plan going forward to better define, I guess on the top of this and what we've heard over the course of the debate is that it's a discrete mechanism or instrument for Indigenous governments to seek greater mining benefits, or encourage more mining exploration in their co-manage areas or traditional territories. That's the explicit purpose of the section.
I think prospecting licences or permits, rather, have a different purpose, a different policy statement, and I think that's why there's the confusion here. I agree 100 percent with the read that the transitional, that these are enabling for those transitional provisions, but this section, it feels orphaned with the stated intent of this.
What is the plan going forward? Is it to do this through the regulations that come next? Is it to provide a legislative amendment to include another subclause that's going to contain zones? The prospecting licences are not clearly defined apart from that traditional provision, and using this section as an instrument. Can we get some clarity on what the policy intention is moving forward as it relates to clearly defining zones as an instrument for prospecting permits apart from a transitional provision? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. I'm going to pause your time for a moment. We're going to have to send the Pages home right away so we don't violate any child labour laws, I think, but I want the Assembly to join me in thanking them for spending some long hours with us here. Thank you to all the Pages for all your work.
---Applause
Minister, your mic is on.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are going to continue prospecting permits. What we are changing is making this not just a tool for our government, but an Indigenous-led partnership to attract responsible exploration, and we'll continue to do that when we do the regs development and have a look at it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Section 24(1) says: For the purposes of the section, applicable in respect of Indigenous governments and organizations, or those Indigenous governments and organizations. That's at the request of a zone. How does industry who basically wants to obtain a prospecting permit, how do they apply for a zone because this section is fairly explicit that it would be an Indigenous government that would have to request a zone be created. How does industry go about doing it, as they did with prospecting permits? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to the prospecting permits, when section 113(5) comes into force, the zone is already created. It is the same zone that we effectively have under the mining regulations right now. Within that zone, a system, there is an ability if you so choose, to obtain a prospecting permit. I think the answer to your question is that it would already be established. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Okay, that's clear. That grandfathered clause that's going to be carried over, will it be subject to the 15-year period as outlined in clause 11? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna. The time is ticking down. Can the Minister produce an answer? Ms. Faryna.
